User talk:Thryduulf: Difference between revisions

For your help with April 21, 2005 Stubsensor cleanup project you are hereby given the Stubsensor award.

I hereby award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your heroic efforts in repairing and repelling the Willy on Wheels vandal — Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} (KC)

Archives

• Archive 1 – 3 January 2005 - 20 April 2005
• Archive 2 – 21 April 2005 - 12 July 2005
• Archive 3 – 14 July 2005 - 6 September 2005

Important Notice!

I'm getting closer to sorting things in my offline life, and am now getting time to check Wikipedia most days. There are still periods when I don't get to check it for a few days at a time though, so please be patient. If your message is truly urgent consider emailing it to me (see user:Thryduulf/Contact) as well as leaving it here. Note though that if your message is not urgent I will likely just ignore the email.

Meetup

Heya,

Just a quick note to remind you of the London Meetup this coming Sunday (the 11th of September) that you signed up for (as 'definite', but it's always good to check ;-)). It's at the Archery Tavern, just next to Lancaster Gate tube station, from 13:00 (BST) onwards.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:New_Orleans_Fire_2005-09-02.jpg

I've posted a comment regarding licensing concerns. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:25, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Dual-licensing England & Wales

Hi Thryduulf,

could you explain to me why you dual-license your uploads to the Commons with CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-SA England&Wales? By default, using any recent Creative Commons license means that you are also multi-licensing it in all international versions (the "iCommons" licenses), so there should be no need to dual-license "manually". Am I missing something?--Eloquence* 16:43, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Creative Commons as of 2.0 allows later versions of the same license or any international version with the same "elements" (e.g. BY, SA) to be used. So when you license something as 2.0 Generic, you are effectively saying: 2.0 Generic, 2.5 Generic, any future versions, or any international license (strangely, while the license explicitly says "later versions" for the generic versions, it seems to be OK to use earlier versions for the iCommons versions).

Multi-licensing still makes a certain amount of sense, as 1.0 didn't have the "later version" provision, and using 2.5 doesn't make the inclusion of content under earlier versions possible without relicensing it. Still, personally, I think this is going overboard, as it only affects 1.0 content. Content under later versions can be freely relicensed under any later version to combine it with Commons content under that version. It would be much better to get creators still using 1.0 to upgrade their license of choice.

On the Commons, there is Template:cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0, and also Template:Self GFDL and cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0. As I explained, multi-licensing with iCommons should never be necessary as it is the default.--Eloquence* 22:28, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Your monobook.js

You haven't quite correctly pasted the code: the penultimate line is missing the last 3 characters,

');

The line should read

 + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

Thanks for (trying to) try the script out! Lupin 22:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Heya

I just stole this since you weren't using it. And, by the way, you somehow managed to mispell your own name, so it wasn't even in your userspace! (Yes that was irony, and if you didn't see what I'm talking about you really need to brush up on your spelling.) Thanks for supporting my RFA (is that the only thing you created it for, wow). What do you mean that was months ago? Anyway, thank you muchly for signing my user page. Quite a club I've got going now. Nice to see someone I know and respect. Oh, and I thought you should know that when I see your name it sometimes makes me think of Theodoric; though it would probably make more sense if I thought of Theodulf... (are there any notable Thryduulfs? We don't have an article...) Ramble, ramble, well, hapy editing. Dmcdevit·t 07:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to stop naming any sockpuppet you discover around as my sockpuppet?

In case its IP profile matches mine, it is probably User:Faethon and his friends. Please stop false accusations. thank you. -- Iasson.

Pictures message

Hello, you recently left me a message about copywrites on pictures I have posted. I am currently in the process of acquiring those permissions. I guess I didn't read into the rules as much as I should have. Hopefully, I'll have the permissions of usage within the next couple of days. Thanks. ClintFord 20:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thryduulf-- Thank you for your kind words and your support in my RfA. At this point in time, it looks as if it is headed for "no consensus", but that's okay. I appreciate your support very much. I don't ever recall running into you around here (I've seen your name, but never interacted), so the fact that people like you support me makes me feel great. See you around, Oh-Not-Scandinavian-One. Thanks again. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverting the "Cartoon Vandal"

Many Thanks and Well Done for reverting the vandalism edits of 209.80.142.210 on Thomas the Tank Engine characters. Glad to see you blocked him as well. I would have started reverting them myself but I'm on a training course and had to be in bed early :o(

-=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

==Who's RfA== Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

re: Certifying RfCs

Thanks. I wasn't sure, as I was the writer. I've changed it now. --Blackcap | talk 16:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:JETFA

I am starting to feel JETFA was a bad idea. It seems to be causing some deal of animosity around here, so I have made a push to disband it. If you still want to be a part of it, go right ahead, but as a card-carrying Esperanzian, I can no longer, in good faith, be a part of the WikiProject. Please see my feelings further at the JETFA page. See you around. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 16:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

List of songs whose title includes geographical names

Well, the started a vote against this list. Maybe you're interested. Bye, -DePiep 20:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:CP

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied" If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions. After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to: {{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~ Blank the page and replace the text with {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}} to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.

Thanks for your support

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES ^(talk) 15:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

List of companies in the PRC

Ever since the article was unprotected, the have been contests on which of the two disputed versions should be displayed [1]. The displayed version throughout the protection period was chosen based on what the old title of the list and what the list was intended for before all those disputes [2] [3]. User:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Huaiwei have refused to keep that version displayed, and have insisted to display the version that they prefers [4] [5] [6]. I'd like to hear from your advice on what I should do. Thanks. — Instantnood 16:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to take this opportunity to point out, that moments after Instantnood was nominated for a 3RR violation [7], he has taken to re-igniting past disputes through a variety of pages, most of which he listed above for your reference. Most of these pages will show that he was the first editor who triggered the latest rounds of edit warring, and even after the rounds of reverts, he has not seen it neccesary to conduct any form of discussion on them. I certainly do hope that he would accept your suggestions for conducting proper dispute resolution, instead of habitually relying on edit warring.--Huaiwei 17:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks. So far nobody has violate the 3RR policy, but the spirit and aims of the twoversions tag was not observed. It is intended to cool down edit warring, and to tell readers the displayed version is not endorsed without objections. It's never right to choose a version to display according to anybody's preference, and that was the reason why I chose a version based on what the list was like before the disputes and contentious edits ([8] [9] [10]). Yet they don't agree, and have insisted to enforce their own point of view and display their preferred version.

I've put up a request at WP:RFC, and I'd like to request to protect the list protected. The same thing happened with the list of airports, and even worse, Huaiwei has disregarded the recent changes, and inserted the id of a far older version to the twoversions template.
(The id Huaiwei inserted to the template belongs to a August 23 version, i.e. he has disregarded the changes made August 23 and the latest version on October 7.) — Instantnood 15:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 18:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

Thryduulf, while I believe you will be able to exercise good judgement in this situation, I do hope you may consider dropping a line in the talk pages of those who are involved before enforcing any of his requests. Thanks so much for your understanding. --Huaiwei 17:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious that in order to get his POV he plays revert games to attract admin attention, then asks for page protection on some ancient version (half a dozen other editors have touched this article since his preference)? When does it end? When does he give up and say "gosh, maybe this wikipedia thing doesn't operate by a single persons POV?" 65.102.149.188 19:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is asking for protection on some ancient version. What I requested is to display version following the lines what these articles were like and were intended for before the contentious edits and the disputes. — Instantnood 20:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Which, ie, is an ancient version.--Huaiwei 21:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Thryduulf, take the list of airports in the People's Republic of China as an example. This is the version prior to the contentious edits ([11] [12] [13]) by Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat, and this is the version that was chosen to be displayed, according to my policy (compare). Another example, the list of railways in China, this is the version prior to the edits ([14]) that I've made and Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat doesn't agree, and this is the version that I've displayed (compare).

Both articles involve the inclusion of the items of Hong Kong. The airport list started under the title "list of airports in Mainland China", and included airports in mainland China only ([15] [16] [17]). The railway lists started under the title "list of railways in China", with Hong Kong included ([18]). For the first list I didn't include Hong Kong in the displayed version, and for the second one I kept Hong Kong.

I believe I've done all these firmly according to my policy, and have done more than enough to showing impartialness when choosing a version to be displayed. I don't have to do what I have done with the list of railways in China, national dish and Electronic Road Pricing if I were insisting to display my preferred versions like they do.

And, for your information, I have also approached user:Dmcdevit, who was responsible for unprotecting the lists of companies and airports last time. — Instantnood 21:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 22:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

Ah, the status quo ante bellum. It's a good thing this is wikipedia and not a tort court. SchmuckyTheCat 22:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a stitch up!

Hi mate,

Could you go to user:Chowells' site here and scroll down to the file called "dscf0966.jpg".

Could you stitch those photos together in a meaningful way to create a panorama of the Great Hall at the NRM? GFDL on them all.

Cheers, Dunc|☺ 15:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

How's this coming along? Dunc|☺ 17:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've actually tried that and failed due to the perspective problems. Can't rememeber the name of the software I was using but I googled it. If you can do it successfully I'd love to see it -- it's the first panorama I tried to make and possibly not the easiest. chowells 18:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I've now managed to produce three different panoramas, none of them perfect though.

• 
• 
• 

The software that I use is Canon PhotoStitch that came with my old PowerShot A20. I find it much better than the software that came with my Panasonic Lumix FZ20. The way I managed to get the panoramas to work was not to try and use all the images - the overlaps are way too small for this - the maximum the software can manage with is about a third, the minimum you need is about an eighth. Merges 1 and 3 are each 3 images, and merge 2 is just two images. As you can see above I have uploaded the images to the commons with a GFDL license. They still need categorising and I haven't linked them from anywhere except here. Thryduulf 20:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well done

You beat me by 9 minutes adding the Merseyrail crash to List of rail accidents :) chowells 18:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

United States Declaration of Independence

Back on 18 July 2005, you protected the article on al-Qaeda in order to let the sides calm down so that we could resolve an NPOV dispute that had become an issue of ego. As a result, all sides were able to work out their dispute and the article has been edited with consensus ever since.

Today, the same situation has arisen on the US Declaration of Independence article. Would you be so kind as to protect it while the parties talk about the dispute in order to reach a consensus in discussion? I have asked JW1805 several times to talk about his POV additions and changes to original article, but he keeps making changes and deletions to things that have been there for months without discussing why. When I try to work with his edits, but reduce the POV, he reverts all of my annotated edits without giving any explanation. I feel confident that if you would protect the edits that User:Nunh-huh and I made for a few days or so, we could resolve this in the same way that we did the Al-Qaeda article. Thanks for what you can do, in advance. --Zephram Stark 03:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thryduulf, I don't know if you have had experience with Zephram Stark before, but this user is a constant source of disruption on many articles. Have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark, as well as the Talk pages of Talk:Inalienable rights, Talk:Inalienable rights/Archive01, Talk:United States Declaration of Independence, and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unalienable rights. He constantly tries to insert POV and original research based on his own philosophical and political views, and will not accept that a consensus is against him. His statment above is completly missleading, as usual. His edits removed some information that I had added, and at this point, I'm just going to rvt his work, and I'm sure the other editors of this article will agree. --JW1805 05:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)